TOPIC: Anyone else holding off for now on Casavantes?

supa wrote: I am not sure you have understood what (I believe) EQ means:

it is all well and good that Linnea safe is a new generation product; however, in contrast to Newplastic and Metacrill (used by Dr C. for years), Linnea safea\'s complication rate is not known. By definition.

hoddle10 wrote: It would be good if everyone who is/was planning on getting the job done soon to write Dr C. about the \"demand\" of using Linea Safe.

everyone? bad idea! not sure the good doctor would welcome the spamming

We are never complete with knowledge.We have no testimonies yet that fact(forumwise), but i doubt Linea safe has gotten worse then other products, and has now new risks. (possible tho but not even i am that skeptic)

Well rather enough people to make him aware of the patient orientation, then too few people. And most likely people who havent gotten NP or Meta because those people care more about it i guess. Remeber ONE penis !
We were always, more or less in the freaking dark.

Didn\'t Lemperle say in a reply to Smartman that a later version of NP was pretty much pure anyway? I suspect these products are continually evolving, only they can\'t relaunch every time they make an improvement. I doubt Linea is actually much, if any, different to the NP Dr has been using for the last year. I seriously doubt their engineering and production took such giant steps forward in the short space of time NP was off the market. They\'ve probably been steadily improving it for years and following the patent issues which caused them to cease production, they\'ve simply rebranded.

That are some of your thoughts of what could be. Your kinda saying NP/Meta is the exact same product then Linea Safe.

My thoughts of what could be is diffrent.
If it its the same Company producing NP/Meta and now Linea Safe (as Lemperle guesses but does not know, as all of us) then those manufacturers probably have Leftovers from NP/Metacrill, which still need to be sold to make profit out of it. Maybe for a lower price then the new product.

Even/despite (fuking english conversation) tho they might have now their new purer version of the product ready.

I guess the safest source, we can relie on is Prof Dr Lemperle.
And he says Linea Safe is alot more pure then the other products (NP/Meta) and with that more likely to be used without the result of FBG (granuloma).

Im def more willing to get pmma injection with a product that is considered more clean according to Dr Lemperle.


phalloboards.websitetoolbox.com/post/sho...2834294&postcount=26

eqstudent wrote: Before anyone has this procedure, please look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself this question. \"Am I prepared to deal with and live with the consequences of getting a FBG\"?

And before anyone has the procedure try to lower the chance of getting one of those FBG by getting the Doctor who injects you to use the most safest considered product.
According to the inventor of PMMA.

My thoughts.

Tommygun wrote: Let\'s all push for Linea Safe.

If it\'s already going to be available in May, what\'s there to push for? I\'m personally still contemplating Metacrill as I\'ve seen the Girth \"hold\" better than New Plastic (essentially former Linnea). Not sure how legitimate the \"hold\" is since we don\'t enough data on this forum to draw a solid conclusion, but it does intrigue me to say the least. What I mean by \"hold\" is how much Girth isn\'t lost to dissipation-over-time.

So far, it sounds like the Linea Safe will be available with Dr C in May. That is really soon.
Let\'s all push for Linea Safe.

@supa, @zol
I am not clear on what you are asking. I am sure that everyone who participated in the \"Complications...\" thread and then did the procedure understood the risks and implications of FBG. I certainly hope so.

I certainly don\'t believe the risks are any less at this point. As I said I had to become comfortable with the worse case consequences from a clear understanding, financial resource, and care resource such as plastic surgeons and urologists who could render the best possible support god forbid I was in the unlucky group and got any complications.

@smartman
I agree with Lemperle on the sources of the crude PMMA beads. This is what I posted last week on my PR

eqstudent wrote: I saw a paper while doing research that compared Artefil, Newplastic and Metacrill and clearly showed that that was the order of purity. All 3 are much better than Atreplast, the first generation PMMA.NP and Metacrill do not have identical formulas. We know that the PMMA beads are suspended in different carriers in those products. The may both start with PMMA beads from the same manufacturer but NP may undergo additional washing and sieving processes to reduce impurities and small bead sizes. We know that part of the expense of Artefil is the additional precise washing and sieving processes required to get it to the agreed '

I received a Q. from one of the member here to Lemperle and I have just got the answer from Lemperle :-
\"In December 2010 I got a PMMA sample of NewPlastic in Mexico from the NewPlastic dealer of Casavantes, and this looked clean like the present Linnea Safe and probably is from the same PMMA manufacturer (in Korea, China or Europe).
Do you think he means that Newplastic is not only manufactured in Brazil? Put differently, is it the case that Lebon laboratories outsource production (of Newplastic) abroad? In Korea, etc.

Could you ask Dr Lemperle about this?

---

No, the injectable PMMA products are all manufactured in Brazil. However, the crude PMMA bone cement, which was used so far in all products, has been manufactured in Germany. Now, the manufacturer of past NewPlastic and new Linnea Safe in Porto Alegre is using a new almost clean PMMA - and this has to be purchased in Korea or China . Since PMMA microspheres are mainly produced for paints, there are no 100 % clean microspheres on the market, unfortunately. All should be washed and cleaned (which is a very complicated process).A patient or distributor cannot judge whether a product is clean: one has to take it under the microscope ! But subdermal under the penile skin I have not heard of any granuloma formation after PMMA: only in the face !
Gottfried

Eqstudent, I am also very interested in what your response to Supa\'s question would be.

aestheticgirth wrote: So even if we assume \"ok NP could have been as good as this New Linea Safe\" (what i dont think ;D ) then it is now
Metacrill vs Linea Safe and if Dr Casavantes is only using Meta now, instead of the old same quality that NP might have had, and Linea has now. Then Metacrill is still a step backwards in quality.

Another question you might ponder is where are the scans of the \"more pure\" NP that Lemperle saw. The 3 scans he sent smartman were the Linea (which while consistent in size appears to have very rough surface) and old scans of Metacrill and Newplastic from the 2008 paper.

hoddle10 wrote: phalloboards.websitetoolbox.com/post/sho...2834294&postcount=26

I think you\'ve missed a post in which Lemperle cleared things up. The last NP he tested was like the new Linea Safe, which is my point. The rebranding wasn\'t done due to improvements in the product itself, but other reasons.

I read that post, its the one i linked in previous post.

Lemperle:
\"Good question ! I had requested PMMA samples from all 4 Brazilian manufacturers (with the help of Flavio Borges) in 2006. And these results were then published by Piacquadio in 2008. All contained > 50 % smaller particles.
In December 2010 I got a PMMA sample of NewPlastic in Mexico from the NewPlastic dealer of Casavantes, and this looked clean like the present Linnea Safe and probably is from the same PMMA manufacturer (in Korea, China or Europe).Whether this cleaner PMMA has been suspended since in NewPlastic by the same company Lebon, Porto Alegre, I do not know. Anyway, NewPlastic is removed from the market , and Linnea Safe now contains this cleaner PMMA.
Sorry for the confusion,and best regards,Gottfried\"


He couldnt make himself a rhym about it. Maybe this cleaner pmma has not been used in the NP, because of the leftovers of the rawmaterial for the older NP, that had to be used.
If NP and Linea safe would be the same then why do they look diffrent under the microscope. Diffrent concentration ?
what Concentration are NP and Meta microscope pics ?
Adjustment distance?
Im asking because i dont know. Anyone has the answer to the concentrationquestion.


Lemperle:\"Anyway, NewPlastic is removed from the market , and Linnea Safe now contains this cleaner PMMA.\"

So even if we assume \"ok NP could have been as good as this New Linea Safe\" (what i dont think ;D ) then it is now
Metacrill vs Linea Safe and if Dr Casavantes is only using Meta now, instead of the old same quality that NP might have had, and Linea has now. Then Metacrill is still a step backwards in quality.

And i would want at least to keep the old quality/purity standard by using Linea Safe. (If its not even a improvement)
Mainpoint i guess.
He should at least offer it as an option for patients!

greeetz

So, EQ, given your understanding and sensitivity to the FBG risk and its potential implications, could you share with us what has prompted you to take the PMMA plunge in the end?

zayne wrote: Realistically, what functional/nonfunctional effects will result from granuloma? An image search for \'penile granuloma\' doesn\'t exactly ease one\'s mind.

Some of this was discussed in the complications thread. I would encourage everyone to please read that thread.

phalloboards.websitetoolbox.com/post/Inf...MA-5395825?trail=150

Here is what I wrote (post #150) then and still believe today.

eqstudent wrote: I see your point. I guess one would not be able to differentiate the mildest granuloma and a lump. A lump or nodule is a small hard mass that will not change size over its lifetime. A granuloma is a small squishy inflammatory mass that will grow over its lifetime. In most cases it will present with swelling, inflammation, and pain. Note that if one reads the Salles 'Complication'' paper I posted earlier and used Lemperle's definition, 26 of the 32 cases are granulomas. Note that the 2 butt implants (deep) presented with pain and nodularity. A plastic surgeon I just spoke to, who has treated several moderate/severe filler granulomas said 'think of Kidney/Lima bean sized cold sores but in some cases more swollen and painful extending the length of your nasolabial fold.' Now imagine living with that condition for 4 months to 3+ years of treatment. He also said forget about surgical excision if used in penis augmentation. That situation would likely require a > 10 surgery reconstruction nightmare.

@EQ: Before anyone has this procedure, please look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself this question. \"Am I prepared to deal with and live with the consequences of getting a FBG\"?Realistically, what functional/nonfunctional effects will result from granuloma? An image search for \'penile granuloma\' doesn\'t exactly ease one\'s mind.

aestheticgirth wrote:

Didn\'t Lemperle say in a reply to Smartman that a later version of NP was pretty much pure anyway? I suspect these products are continually evolving, only they can\'t relaunch every time they make an improvement. I doubt Linea is actually much, if any, different to the NP Dr has been using for the last year. I seriously doubt their engineering and production took such giant steps forward in the short space of time NP was off the market. They\'ve probably been steadily improving it for years and following the patent issues which caused them to cease production, they\'ve simply rebranded.

That are some of your thoughts of what could be. Your kinda saying NP/Meta is the exact same product then Linea Safe.

My thoughts of what could be is diffrent.
If it its the same Company producing NP/Meta and now Linea Safe (as Lemperle guesses but does not know, as all of us) then those manufacturers probably have Leftovers from NP/Metacrill, which still need to be sold to make profit out of it. Maybe for a lower price then the new product.

Even/despite (fuking english conversation) tho they might have now their new purer version of the product ready.

I guess the safest source, we can relie on is Prof Dr Lemperle.
And he says Linea Safe is alot more pure then the other products (NP/Meta) and with that more likely to be used without the result of FBG (granuloma).

Im def more willing to get pmma injection with a product that is considered more clean according to Dr Lemperle.


phalloboards.websitetoolbox.com/post/sho...2834294&postcount=26

I think you\'ve missed a post in which Lemperle cleared things up. The last NP he tested was like the new Linea Safe, which is my point. The rebranding wasn\'t done due to improvements in the product itself, but other reasons.

aestheticgirth wrote: And before anyone has the procedure try to lower the chance of getting one of those FBG by getting the Doctor who injects you to use the most safest considered product.

It really does not change the central question. That is what we really need to understand. You can make the number in the \"unlucky\" pool as small as you want. Somebody is going to be in that pool and it could very well be you. Then what?That is the real question.